Rhett Lashlee believes both Alabama and SMU deserved spots in the College Football Playoff, citing performance and conference strength.

The 2024 college football season was one of the most talked-about campaigns in recent memory, not only for the action on the field but for the seismic shifts in how the College Football Playoff (CFP) selections were made. As the playoff expanded to 12 teams for the first time, the decision-making process drew intense scrutiny—especially with the surprising exclusion of powerhouse Alabama and the inclusion of Southern Methodist University (SMU). At the center of this conversation was SMU’s head coach, Rhett Lashlee, who voiced a firm conviction that both his team and Alabama deserved spots in the CFP. Lashlee’s argument was rooted in the teams’ performances, the strength of their respective conferences, and the evolving criteria for playoff inclusion in college football’s most prestigious postseason tournament.

The Context: A Changing Landscape in College Football

The 2024 season marked the first year of the CFP’s expanded format, growing from four to 12 teams. This expansion was designed to offer a fairer representation of deserving teams, particularly those from the so-called “Group of Five” conferences or those outside the traditional Power Five elite. This new system placed increased emphasis on conference champions across all conferences, the overall body of work, and strength of schedule.

Amid this backdrop, two teams generated considerable debate: Alabama, a perennial contender from the Southeastern Conference (SEC), and SMU, a rising program transitioning into the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC). Both teams had impressive seasons, but their paths to the CFP were markedly different.

SMU’s Strong Case for Inclusion

SMU’s 2024 season was a showcase of resilience, growth, and an unwavering drive to prove their worth on the national stage. The Mustangs finished with an impressive 11–2 overall record, including an undefeated 8–0 mark in ACC play during their inaugural season in the conference. This performance culminated in an appearance in the ACC Championship Game, where SMU narrowly lost to Clemson in a tightly contested battle.

Rhett Lashlee, SMU’s head coach, was quick to highlight the team’s accomplishments and argued passionately that the Mustangs deserved a spot in the playoff, regardless of the championship game result. He pointed to the committee’s rankings prior to the ACC Championship, where SMU was already positioned at No. 8—a spot that suggested they had earned inclusion based on their record and quality of wins. Lashlee emphasized that the playoff committee’s own criteria included recognition of conference champions and the importance of strong performances across the season. SMU, as the ACC runner-up with only two narrow losses, met and arguably exceeded those standards.

Furthermore, Lashlee argued that the ACC’s overall strength was often undervalued. Despite perceptions of being a tier below the SEC or Big Ten, the ACC had demonstrated competitiveness, including wins against Power Five opponents and a strong interconference record. SMU’s dominance in conference play underlined their readiness to compete against elite teams nationally.

Alabama’s Disappointment and Arguments for Inclusion

Alabama’s exclusion from the 12-team playoff was one of the most surprising aspects of the 2024 selection. Traditionally a powerhouse, Alabama finished the season with a 10–3 record, including a marquee victory over Georgia, the SEC champion and one of the highest-ranked teams nationally. Alabama’s challenging schedule reflected the toughest in college football, featuring matchups against multiple ranked opponents and strong non-conference competition.

Despite these factors, Alabama suffered three losses, including unexpected defeats to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. These blemishes, particularly the loss to unranked Vanderbilt, weighed heavily against their playoff chances. The committee’s decision to favor SMU over Alabama was controversial but consistent with a broader emphasis on overall performance and conference championships rather than historical reputation or strength of schedule alone.

Alabama’s athletic director expressed disappointment publicly but acknowledged the reality of the committee’s criteria, emphasizing that every game counts in a playoff selection system that rewards consistent excellence. From Lashlee’s perspective, however, Alabama’s exclusion was a missed opportunity to recognize the grit and resilience of a team that had competed in one of the toughest conferences.

Lashlee’s Broader Advocacy for Fairness and Conference Respect

Rhett Lashlee’s advocacy extended beyond SMU’s own playoff hopes. He repeatedly called for greater respect for conferences like the ACC, which had been traditionally overshadowed by the SEC and Big Ten in playoff considerations. Lashlee pointed out that the ACC had a winning record against the Big Ten during the season and had shown its ability to compete at a high level, yet its teams were often overlooked in favor of more established conferences.

Lashlee’s comments reflected a broader conversation about fairness in college football: the need to reward teams based on current merit and achievements rather than historical pedigree or conference affiliation. His argument was that the CFP should reflect the evolving landscape of college football, where emerging programs and conferences deserve an equal chance to compete on the sport’s biggest stage.

The Significance of SMU’s Playoff Appearance

SMU’s inclusion in the playoff was historic and marked a milestone for the program. The Mustangs’ rise from a program struggling for national relevance to a playoff contender symbolized what dedication, strategic investment, and effective coaching could achieve. Despite their first-round loss to Penn State, the very fact that SMU earned a spot validated their efforts and set a precedent for similar programs in the future.

The Mustangs’ playoff berth also underscored a shift in college football’s power dynamics. No longer was playoff inclusion the sole domain of traditional Power Five schools; merit-based selection allowed for greater diversity and unpredictability in the postseason.

The Evolving Criteria for Playoff Selection

The 2024 CFP selection process revealed an important evolution in how teams are evaluated. Whereas past iterations of the playoff were criticized for favoring established programs and traditional power conferences, the expanded format prioritized conference championships and quality of wins. This change allowed teams like SMU, with strong conference play and a championship game appearance, to break through.

Lashlee’s perspective highlights this shift. He argued that both SMU and Alabama had earned playoff spots, but in a system that values conference championships and performance, SMU’s undefeated conference run and championship game appearance provided a compelling case. Meanwhile, Alabama’s losses, despite a tough schedule, made their inclusion more difficult to justify within the new framework.

Rhett Lashlee’s belief that both Alabama and SMU deserved spots in the College Football Playoff is a testament to his commitment to fairness and recognition of performance. His advocacy highlights the complexities of playoff selection in an evolving college football landscape—where conference strength, consistent performance, and championship success increasingly define merit.

While the committee’s decision ultimately favored SMU, Lashlee’s stance invites ongoing dialogue about how best to balance tradition and progress, competition and fairness. As college football continues to grow and change, voices like Lashlee’s ensure that the conversation remains focused on rewarding excellence and opportunity for all deserving programs.